Medium Sized Knives

The SHSH is 7.5 inches and I consider it med.
I put it in the same class as the SJTAC, SFNO, HR, EU17.

For me large starts at 8 and includes the FSH and all the BM's.
 
Gravelface said:
One time I remember considering weight was in Baghdad...a normal "combat load" of rounds is 210. ........I opted for the improved 330 rounds.....call me cautious!:D
Click to expand...

In that situation, I don't think I can disagree with you there ;) Hell, even 330 doesn't sound like it is enough :D
 
Tyrkon Lawson said:
Just to help what should we say is the range for a large knife and a medium knife?

Large: 7" plus?

Medium: 5-7"

What do you guys think?
Click to expand...

problem is the width and thickness of the blade also contributes to size.

so.....

xl-xxl: ak, ffbm

large: steel heart (most) through fbm

med-large: ash, outlaw

med: any badger

small: any warden or edc handled knife.
 
That nails the size chart in my mind.

Large: 7" plus?

Medium: 5-7"

What do you guys think?

The mid size varies by style. A Satin Jack has a cutting edge about 5 1/4" and a Camp Tramp has a cutting edge 5 5/8ths....but they are 2 ENTIRELY different knives!

The BK7 and Fehrman First Strike are similar sizes, but I would never try to chop nearly the same about/size limb with the BK7 as with the FS. Thickness....grind....shape, the FS is just a superior mid sized blade.
 
yup. and the sjtac and st jack are two totally different knives with similar blade/overall lengths.

a really accurate list would have to put each individual knife in a category.

too much work....
 
One problem I am having is that I like the Ratweilers & Chopweilers but what could they do that my FFBM could not do better? Especially if I have a Swamp Warden piggy backed to it.
 
Tyrkon Lawson said:
One problem I am having is that I like the Ratweilers & Chopweilers but what could they do that my FFBM could not do better? Especially if I have a Swamp Warden piggy backed to it.
Click to expand...

i imagine it is just how each knife feels in hand. i doubt the rats could do anything better than the fatty.
 
MORIMOTOM said:
i imagine it is just how each knife feels in hand. i doubt the rats could do anything better than the fatty.
Click to expand...

That's what I am thinking and why I haven't grabbed either of the Rats or an SH-E or something similar. I mean in Jeepnut22's great comparison thread the RW cuts deeply into a 2x4 in 38-40 chops. It did very well. But if we are looking at the best chopper my video of my FFBM shows it blowing through a 2x4 in 9 chops. And that was before I reprofiled it. So chopping wise I just can not turn my back on the FFBM. :o
 
Tyrkon Lawson said:
One problem I am having is that I like the Ratweilers & Chopweilers but what could they do that my FFBM could not do better? Especially if I have a Swamp Warden piggy backed to it.
Click to expand...

I love my CW ... and a couple RWs have passed through my hands ... but really, the FFBM is the king.

Of course, I've got a LOT of FFBMs, so it's possible I'm just biased! :)
 
Tyrkon Lawson said:
One problem I am having is that I like the Ratweilers & Chopweilers but what could they do that my FFBM could not do better? Especially if I have a Swamp Warden piggy backed to it.
Click to expand...

I think that the mid sized blades like the Chopweiler and such have their place in a "combat situation" or fight. Where a 10+ blade would be difficult to manuever and a 3 inch blade might not be enough. I have know idea what I'm talking about and no training either, just a thought though.
 
WVHILLS: Good points but for combative type situations I think style and preference really come into play. Of my over 15 years of training and teaching FMA I am used to all ranges. Most of my bolos were FFBM size or longer but of course thinner. Short knives, such as the Swamp Warden, would be great for very close ranges. So combatives wise I leave that into the hands of the wielder as to how they have trained and what they prefer. Just my opinion.
 
If that is the case then where do the medium sized knives come in?
Click to expand...

If you want to save weight, if you have a size restriction. I rarely carry a knife larger than 6" because it won't fit comfortably on my rack. If I carry a knife on a dropleg I find that anything bigger than 7" is unwieldy and hinders movement. I would say anything bigger than a SJT is a large knife. I would say it's knife dependent, but anything with a blade over 6" I consider large.
 
Speaking on belts, I like to use the gun belt from maxpedition :D it's solid.
 
pbubsy said:
Speaking on belts, I like to use the gun belt from maxpedition :D it's solid.
Click to expand...

Hey! I'll have to give that a try. Cool. :thumbup:

BTW pbusby . Thanks for the suggestion on the mechanic's gloves. I used some today and boy did they help without effecting up blade control. :thumbup:
 
pbubsy said:
Speaking on belts, I like to use the gun belt from maxpedition :D it's solid.
Click to expand...

i tried the liger gun belt. is that the one, or is it a web belt?

i found the liger to be too flexible.

i prefer something reinforced like the galco. with the liger i found my holster drooped unless i made the belt real tight.


then my stomach drooped.
 
762 shooter said:
What is a medium sized knife? Ask anyone here and a 5 to 7 inch bladed knife will pop up. Walk into your local overpriced coffee shop and pull out an ASH1 and ask them if it is a medium or large bladed knife and I bet you would get a different answer.
Click to expand...

Ain't that the truth.

Anecdote time: A couple of years ago, I bought a Groove Master from someone on the Exchange and had him send it to my parents' home since I was going to be there for a week. Dad and I share the name (hence the "jr" in my username), so he opened it when it arrived. My 12 year old nephew came running in to ask me "Did you get a huge knife sent here?" For those of you who don't know, the GM is about the size of a BA3, maybe 4.5" long.
 
Tyrkon Lawson said:
That's what I am thinking and why I haven't grabbed either of the Rats or an SH-E or something similar. I mean in Jeepnut22's great comparison thread the RW cuts deeply into a 2x4 in 38-40 chops. It did very well. But if we are looking at the best chopper my video of my FFBM shows it blowing through a 2x4 in 9 chops. And that was before I reprofiled it. So chopping wise I just can not turn my back on the FFBM. :o
Click to expand...


There is absolutely NO way a RW or CW could compete with a FFBM! The FFBM is way ahead of the game. As far as number of chops....I think that handle feel, technique, and experience all play a huge factor. Phil's 38 chops may very well translate to 20 chops for you. Also, he didn't mention this on the posting but..... Phil had a smashed pinkie and a sprained ring finger that had to be taped to his middle finger during the chopping.
 
Ban said:
There is absolutely NO way a RW or CW could compete with a FFBM! The FFBM is way ahead of the game. As far as number of chops....I think that handle feel, technique, and experience all play a huge factor. Phil's 38 chops may very well translate to 20 chops for you. Also, he didn't mention this on the posting but..... Phil had a smashed pinkie and a sprained ring finger that had to be taped to his middle finger during the chopping.
Click to expand...

That's why I am trying to see why some people might prefer RW or SFNO or ASH1 size blades. Let's take the RW for example. It was born to chop. But if something like an FFBM is much better why would someone want an RW. Ergos? Weight? Room in the pack? Those characteristics just are not a big enough factor for me to give up the superior chopping of the FFBM. So I am curious as to what other reasons some people might have.

Make no mistake about it I LOVE medium sized knives. I am just exploring this.

And I was not trying to compare my chopping abilities to Phill's. He may very well clean the floor with me. :D I was just comparing the two tests.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top